Male pistachio tree named ‘Famoso’

ABSTRACT

A new male pistachio tree ( Pistacia vera  L.) designated as ‘Famoso’, particularly characterized by mid- to late-season flowering time, is provided. The male pistachio tree ‘Famoso’ is further characterized by consistent flowering from year to year, and production of a large amount of pollen over an extended period. In addition, ‘Famoso’ is characterized by precocious flowering three to four years after budding.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No.62/147,540, filed Apr. 14, 2015, which is incorporated herein byreference in its entirety.

Latin name: Botanical/commercial classification: Pistacia vera L.

Varietal denomination: The varietal denomination of the claimedpistachio variety is ‘Famoso’.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

An objective of pistachio breeding programs is to develop improved malepollinators of the female pistachio variety ‘Kerman’ (not patented). Thefemale pistachio variety ‘Kerman’ is the main later-season pistachiocultivar grown in California and in other parts of the world. The malepistachio variety ‘Peters’ (not patented) is a common male cultivar usedas a pollen source to pollinate ‘Kerman’. Although ‘Peters’ is viewed asthe industry standard pollinator variety for ‘Kerman’, ‘Peters’ oftenflowers later than ‘Kerman’ and has a history of providing poorflowering overlap with ‘Kerman’. This poor flowering overlap isespecially seen during years with insufficient chilling. Even in seasonsof sufficient chilling, ‘Peters’ is not very precocious, meaning that‘Peters’ is slow to produce flowers as a juvenile tree. This isparticularly apparent when ‘Peters’ is compared to female ‘Kerman’trees, which will have many flowers at 6^(th) or 7^(th) leaf, while‘Peters’ trees will have either none or relatively few. Typically, thefemale variety ‘Kerman’ is approximately one year ahead of the malevariety ‘Peters’ in terms of flower development, which results in a yearof lost production. Further, in low chill years, ‘Peters’ has performedvery poorly. In some young orchards, ‘Peters’ produced almost noflowers, the flowers that were produced had no pollen, and ‘Peters’often bloomed 1-2 weeks later than ‘Kerman’. Over time, the use of‘Peters’ has resulted in inadequate pollination of ‘Kerman’ and reducedyield potential.

Pistachio growers are in need of a male pistachio variety that is moreprecocious than ‘Peters’, performs better in low chill years, and has abetter flowering overlap with the female variety ‘Kerman’. Thus, thereexists a need for improved pollinator varieties, such as male varietieshaving improved flowering overlap with ‘Kerman’. The present malepistachio variety ‘Famoso’ described herein is a product of the breedingefforts to produce improved male pistachio varieties.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to a new and distinct pistachio cultivar(Pistacia vera L.) that has been denominated as ‘Famoso’, and moreparticularly as a male pistachio variety that has a better overlap withthe flowering period of the female pistachio variety ‘Kerman’ than doesthe male pistachio variety ‘Peters’. In addition, the male pistachiovariety ‘Famoso’ is more precocious than ‘Peters’; ‘Famoso’ producesflowers three to four years after budding as compared to ‘Peters’, whichtypically takes four to five years to produce flowers after budding. Themale pistachio variety ‘Famoso’ also has a more consistent floweringperiod that is more coincident with the flowering period of the femalepistachio variety ‘Kerman’. In contrast, the male pistachio variety‘Peters’ has poor flowering overlap with ‘Kerman’ as well as poor bloomsduring some years. ‘Peters’ has especially poor blooms during years withlow chilling, which are expected to become more frequent in future yearsin view of the warming climate.

By providing a better overlap in flowering period with ‘Kerman’ than isprovided by ‘Peters’, ‘Famoso’ may improve ‘Kerman’ yield, especially inyears when ‘Peters’ flowers significantly later than ‘Kerman’. ‘Famoso’flowering is more consistent than ‘Peters’, and ‘Famoso’ also produces alarge amount of pollen over an extended period. ‘Famoso’ is potentiallysignificant as an alternative to ‘Peters’ for the Californian, NewMexican, Arizonan, and world-wide pistachio industries. ‘Famoso’ may beused as the pollinizer for other mid- to late-season pistachio cultivarssuch as ‘Kerman’. ‘Famoso’ may also be used as an additional pollinizerof mid- to late-season female pistachio varieties (e.g. ‘Kerman’) inorchards along with the male variety ‘Peters’ or other male pistachiovarieties.

The cross that produced ‘Famoso’ was originally made during Year 1, andthe original seedling of ‘Famoso’ was planted at a research plot nearBakersfield, Calif., USA during Year 2. The cross was made betweenPistacia vera L. female ‘2-35’ (not patented) and Pistacia vera L. male‘ES#4’ (not patented). ‘Famoso’ was originally designated as selection‘B19-69’. ‘B19-69’ was budded (asexually propagated via T-buds) ontorootstocks at two test locations called Tejon Ranch and Little Creek ineastern Kern County, Calif., USA. Buds from the original ‘B19-69’ treewere budded onto ‘UCB-1’ (not patented) rootstocks at both testlocations in Year 13. Selection ‘B19-69’ was chosen as a candidate forrelease under the variety name ‘Famoso’. The variety ‘Famoso’ has beenfound to be stable and reproduce true to type through successive asexualpropagations.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 illustrates a 12-year-old ‘Famoso’ tree in bloom during Year 25.

FIG. 2A illustrates flower clusters of a 12-year-old ‘Famoso’ tree justprior to dehiscence. FIG. 2B illustrates flower clusters of a12-year-old ‘Famoso’ tree at anther dehiscence.

FIG. 3A illustrates the trunk, branches, and canopy of a 12-year-old‘Famoso’ tree. FIG. 3B illustrates the leaves of ‘Famoso’. FIG. 3Cillustrates the venation pattern on the leaves of a 15-year-old ‘Famoso’tree.

FIG. 4A illustrates the mean germination ratio of freshly-collectedpollen for 13-year-old ‘Famoso’ trees and other male pistachio varietiesin Year 26. Shown is the analysis of means (MiniTab 17) with 5% SD,where a value of 1.0=100%. FIG. 4B illustrates a fitted means plot ofthe germination data presented in FIG. 4A.

FIG. 5A illustrates the mean germination ratio of stored pollen for13-year-old ‘Famoso’ trees and other male pistachio varieties in Year26. Shown is the analysis of means (MiniTab 17) with 5% SD, where avalue of 1.0=100%. FIG. 5B illustrates boxplots of viable pollen ratiosby variety.

FIG. 6A illustrates the mean pollen weight per inflorescence (grams) for13-year-old ‘Famoso’ trees and other male pistachio varieties in Year26. Shown is the analysis of means (MiniTab 17) with 5% SD. FIG. 6Billustrates boxplots of pollen weight by variety.

FIG. 7A-FIG. 7B illustrates a comparison of inflorescence density for13-year-old ‘Famoso’ trees (FIG. 7A) and ‘Peters’ (FIG. 7B).

FIG. 8. illustrates a comparison of collected inflorescences from a15-year-old ‘Famoso’ tree and a ‘Peters’ tree showing differences in thecolors of the inflorescences.

BOTANICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANT

The following is a detailed botanical description of the new malepistachio cultivar designated as ‘Famoso’, including the keydifferentiating characteristics of this variety and comparisons ofcertain characteristics of ‘Famoso’ to other pistachio varieties. Unlessotherwise indicated, evaluation data was taken from 12- to 15-year-oldtrees. Color descriptions are based on the color standards presented inR.H.S. Colour Chart of The Royal Horticultural Society of London(R.H.S.) (1st edition, 1966).

Plant Winter Hardiness, Heat Tolerance, and Drought Tolerance: ‘Famoso’,as is typical of Pistacia vera L., will tolerate temperatures greaterthan −5° C. to −10° C. The ‘UCB-1’ rootstock on which it is grafted,however, can sustain significant damage at −5° C. after a few hours. The‘Famoso’ cultivar is typically grown in a hot dry environment, and hasbeen grown in a location having typical summer temperatures greater than40° C. to 42° C. ‘Famoso’ is similar to ‘Kerman’ or ‘Peters’ in that itrequires sufficient winter chill to flower (800+ hours below 8° C.). AllCalifornia pistachio cultivars are grown as an irrigated crop andrequire about 1000 mm of water during the growing season. Pistachiocultivars will tolerate poor quality water and do not show significantyield loss or damage up to EC (electrical conductivity) 8-12.

Tree Size: Tree height was about 3-4 meters on 15-year-old ‘Famoso’trees in Year 28. ‘PG1’ (‘Pioneer Gold 1’) rootstock was the particularrootstock used for these particular ‘Famoso’ trees. Trunk crosssectional areas were taken above and below the graft union and convertedto cross sectional area to provide an estimate of tree size at 15 yearsof age (TABLE 1). ‘Randy’ (U.S. Plant Pat. No. 18,262) was the standardcheck cultivar in this plot. Both cultivars were similar in size (notsignificantly different), with some overgrowth of the scion for‘Famoso’. This has been observed in other cultivars and has not been aproblem.

TABLE 1 Trunk cross sectional areas Variable Cultivar Mean SE Mean StDevp value xc top Famoso 1.460 0.142 0.28 0.734 Randy 1.4016 0.084 0.168 xcbottom Famoso 0.8432 0.0480 0.096 0.051 Randy 1.0229 0.0560 0.112 RatioFamoso 1.727 0.124 0.248 0.113 (Top/bottom) Randy 1.390 0.133 0.265

Bark: The bark of ‘Famoso’ trees is grey (202C-D). Photographs weretaken of 15-year-old ‘Famoso’ and ‘Randy’ trunks of 2 trees for thepurpose of evaluating differences in trunk lenticel density in Year 28.5 cm and 10 cm templates were used for the photographs. Counts werenormalized to counts/cm. 8 to 10 evaluations were done per cultivar withcount values of about 50 to 250 counts per observation. ANOVAs werecomputed with MiniTab 17. No significant differences were found(p=0.329). However, ‘Famoso’ was observed to have exceptionallyirregular and rough lenticels. In most pistachios, lenticels arearranged in horizontal rows, but ‘Famoso’ lenticels were more random inarrangement and appearance. TABLE 2 shows the mean values for bothcultivars (unit is number of lenticels/cm²).

TABLE 2 Mean number of lenticels/cm² Cultivar Mean SE Mean StDev p valueFamoso 18.54 1.35 4.27 0.329 Randy 16.18 2.01 5.67

Leaves: ‘Famoso’ leaves are highly variable in the details of theirform, shape and size within the tree. In general, the leaves aredeciduous simple compound imparipinnate with one or two pairs ofoppositely arranged lateral leaflets. However, the leaves can also betrifoliate and on branches with an abundance of new vegetative growth,and only one or no lateral leaflets may be present. Leaflet margins areentire to slightly crenate. Leaflets are oval to ovate and 5-8 cm long.Terminal leaflets can be less than 8 cm to greater than 16 cm. Leafletsvary considerably in shape, in general being ovate and having cuspidateto rounded apex and a rounded base (FIG. 3B). Margins of leaf blades areentire. Leaf surfaces are glabrous, smooth, and waxy. Leaf venation isof the cladodromous type as described by Hickey (1973) Amer. J. Botany60:17-33, and as shown in FIG. 3C. For leaves, color evaluations weredone on at least 3 leaves, each new and mature, collected at random froma ‘Famoso’ tree during the summer of Year 25 (12-year-old trees). Leavesare shades of green, similar for both upper and lower surfaces. Matureleaves, top surface=137B, bottom surface=137B, 137C, new leaves, topsurface=137A, 137B, bottom surface=139C, 138B, leaf midrib=145C. Thecolor of new leaves is 138B to 139C, and the lower surface is 139C. Theleaf midrib color for new leaves is 143C. Midrib and petiole colors arethe same. Images of the leaves of ‘Famoso’ are presented in FIG. 3B andFIG. 3C. Typical petiole/leaf values of 15-year-old ‘Famoso’ trees and‘Randy’ trees from Year 28 are shown in TABLE 3 (15 observations).Differences were non-significant at 5% for both petiole and terminalleaflet. The petiole diameter is approximately 1-2 mm, and therefore toosmall to be measured accurately.

TABLE 3 Typical petiole/leaf values from Year 28 Cultivar Variable MeanSD p-value Famoso petiole length (cm) 4.99 1.32 0.322 Randy petiolelength (cm) 4.57 0.88 Famoso terminal leaflet (cm) 11.32 1.88 Randyterminal leaflet (cm) 11.11 2.34

Flowering Time: ‘Famoso’ is at full bloom ˜1.4 days before or after‘Kerman’ and 7-9 days after ‘Golden Hills’ (U.S. Plant Pat. No. 17,158),but 2-7 days before ‘Peters’ and ˜4 days after ‘Randy’ (depending on theseason). The male pistachio variety ‘Famoso’ flowered at approximatelythe same time as the female pistachio variety ‘Kerman’ over a five yearperiod (TABLE 4A). ‘Famoso’ trees were 5 years old in Year 18. TABLE 4Ashows mean “full bloom” flowering dates for ‘Famoso’ and ‘Randy’ over a5 year period, referenced to ‘Kerman’ (day 0). Overall, ‘Randy’ floweredabout 4 days before ‘Famoso’, while ‘Famoso’ peak flowering was about1.5 days ahead of ‘Kerman’. An image of ‘Famoso’ in bloom is presentedin FIG. 1. An image of a ‘Famoso’ tree, including images of the trunk,branches, and canopy, is presented in FIG. 3A.

TABLE 4A Flowering time of ‘Famoso’ and other varieties relative to‘Kerman’ Tejon Ranch Little Creek (Famoso) Date^(a) 4/5, 4/13 4/21,4/21, 4/20, 4/1, 4/13, 4/19, 4/16, 4/17, Year 18 Year 19 Year 20 Year 21Year 22 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20 Year 21 Year 22 Flowering Date vs.‘Kerman’ (female) Flowering Date vs. ‘Kerman’ (female) ‘Kerman’ 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 ‘Famoso’ 0 −2 −3 −3 −2 −1 −1 0 −2 −1 ‘Randy’ −4 −5 −6 −7 −50 −9 −6 −7 −4 Mean Flowering Date vs. ‘Kerman’ (both locations) ‘Kerman’0 ‘Famoso’ −1.5 ‘Randy’ −5.3 Flower Density Score^(b) Flower DensityScore^(b) ‘Famoso’ 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 4 3 ‘Randy’ 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 MeanFlower Density Score (both locations) ‘Famoso’ 2.9 ‘Randy’ 3.9 ^(a)Thisis the date that the female variety ‘Kerman’ flowered in the yearidentified. ^(b)Flower density presented from 1 = low to 4 = high.

Low Chill Flowering: TABLE 4B presents flowering time results for Year26 (13-year-old ‘Famoso’ trees), which was a low chill year. In Year 26,‘Famoso’ was similar to ‘Randy’ in terms of flowering date, and ‘Famoso’flowered long before ‘Peters’. Both ‘Randy’ and ‘Famoso’ overlapped with‘Kerman’. Despite the overlap between ‘Randy’ and ‘Kerman’ in this lowchill year, from TABLE 4A above, it is seen that, in a normal chillyear, ‘Randy’ would flower too early for good pollenization of ‘Kerman’.‘Famoso’ is intermediate to ‘Randy’ and ‘Peters’ for flowering date andthus can overlap with ‘Kerman’ in both higher and lower chillingseasons.

TABLE 4B Year 26 flowering evaluation of ‘Famoso’. Note mid-bloom(3)/full bloom (4) dates for overlap. Cultivar Evaluation Date: Year 26March 16 March 19 March 23 March 26 March 30 April 2 Famoso Male 1.9 2.32.6 2.7 3.3 6 Randy Male 2 2.4 2.5 2.6 3.5 6 Peters Male 1 0.9 1 1.3 2.62.8 Kerman Female 2 2.5 2.9 4.5 6 6 Golden Hills Female 2.4 3.2 3.5 6 66 Lost Hills Female 2.4 3.2 4.2 6 6 6 Bloom ratings 0 to 6: 0 = dormantbuds, 1 = green tip on flower bud, 2 => (greater than) 5 open buds ontree, 3 = mid bloom, 4 = full bloom, 5 = late bloom, 6 = bloom finished

Flowers and Inflorescences: ‘Famoso’ inflorescences are borne laterallyon branches, rarely as terminal buds. They are located on one year oldwood. The flower buds form a branched compound inflorescence as acompact compressed panicle. The panicles are 2 to 5 cm long when fullyexpanded and shedding pollen with considerable variation in size. Flowerdevelopment is from base to tip of the panicle and typically spansseveral weeks, depending on weather conditions during individualseasons. ‘Famoso’ inflorescences have an orange-reddish (31B to 43A or43B) appearance, especially on the outer surface, in contrast to‘Peters’ inflorescences which are green to light green (136B-139B) withtinges of red (42C-43C) on some predehiscing inflorescences (FIG. 8).Individual flowers are 1-2 mm in diameter. ‘Famoso’ is a male pistachiotree, which means that all flowers are male. Because there are no femaleflowers, no seed is produced. Tips and outside of individual flowers arepinkish red (39B-C) changing to yellow (11C, 12D, 13D), and flowers nearthe base of the panicles are tinged red (42C-43A,B) prior to opening ofindividual flowers. Flowers do not have petals and have 5-6 stamens eachwith 4 lobes. Pollen is shed from the terminal ends of the stamens.

Flower Density: On a flower density scale (1=low, 4=high), ‘Famoso’ranks at an average of ˜3. This is higher than the rating of ‘Peters’,which ranks at a maximum of 2 as a mature tree. ‘Randy’ ranks as astrong 4.

Pollen: ‘Famoso’ has good pollen viability, providing good quantities ofviable pollen. ‘Famoso’ sheds a large amount of pollen over a reasonablyextended period (19, 14 and 20 days at the Famoso trial in Year 20, Year21, and Year 22, respectively), and has a highly coincident floweringperiod with ‘Kerman’. ‘Famoso’ trees were 7 years old in Year 20. Pollengermination at pollen shed for ‘Famoso’ is high and similar to both‘Randy’ and ‘Peters’. ‘Famoso’ produces more abundant flowers and pollenas a juvenile tree compared to ‘Peters’. Views of ‘Famoso’ flowerclusters both prior to and at dehiscence are presented in FIG. 2A andFIG. 2B. Pollen counts (germination) for ‘Famoso’ taken directly afterpollen collection in Year 25 (12-year-old trees) was similar to ‘Randy’but less than ‘Peters’ (TABLE 5). ‘Famoso’ should be a superiorpollinizer for ‘Kerman’ due to better overlap of pollen shed with the‘Kerman’ bloom period, especially when the orchard first comes intobearing.

TABLE 5 Pollen counts taken directly after pollen collection in Year 25Mean Std. dev. Variety n % % ‘Farnoso’ 8 69.711 8.796 ‘Peters’ 6 79.0348.014 ‘Randy’ 8 67.752 7.179

Pollen Germination (Year 26): Pollen germination is somewhat a snapshotin time, as it can vary from early to late bloom. Differentinflorescences and flowers on the same branch will shed pollen atdifferent times during the bloom period. To analyze fresh pollen counts(germination) in Year 26 (13-year-old ‘Famoso’ trees), pollen from avariety of male pistachio varieties was collected between March 21 andMarch 31. Pollen was germinated on 18% sucrose with some boron andcalcium nitrate, and at low light in a humid chamber. The pollen of eachcultivar was germinated using hanging drop slides. Each slide had twowells and three of these slides were prepared for each cultivar.Germination results are presented below. ‘Randy’ is a proven pollinizerfor the 30,000+ acres of ‘Golden Hills’ planted in the San JoaquinValley, and ‘Famoso’ had higher pollen germination percentages than‘Randy’ or ‘Peters’ in this study (TABLE 6A, TABLE 6B, FIG. 4A, and FIG.4B).

TABLE 6A Least Squares Means for germination of fresh pollen in Year 26,counted immediately after flowering. Cultivar Mean % SE Mean % N-4885.09 2.334 Peters 66.67 3.301 Randy 58.09 2.557 B15-43 86.19 2.334B16-58 90.40 2.334 Famoso 85.66 1.906

TABLE 6B GLM ANOVA showing highly significant differences amongcultivars. GLM Analysis of Variance for Germination of Fresh PollenSource DF SS MS F P Cultivar 5 0.84564 0.16913 25.87 0.000 Error 640.41841 0.00654 Total 69 1.26405 S = 0.0808560 R-Sq = 66.90% R-Sq(adj) =64.31%

Aged Pollen Germination: In Year 26 (13-year-old ‘Famoso’ trees), pollenwas collected from ‘Famoso’ and several comparison male pistachiovarieties, including ‘Randy’ and ‘Peters’. The collected pollen wasstored in a refrigerator for two days prior to conducting viable pollencounts (germination assay). This “aged pollen” count provides anestimate of pollen durability. Mean viable pollen counts for eachvariety are presented in FIG. 5A, and boxplots of these viable pollenratios by variety are shown in FIG. 5B. Raw mean data and standarderrors are presented in TABLE 7. Additional data and analysis areprovided in TABLE 8A and TABLE 8B- . Aged pollen for ‘Famoso’ was moreviable than that of ‘Peters’, but less than that of ‘Randy’.

TABLE 7 “Aged Pollen” Viability Ratios Standard Error Variety Mean Mean‘15-43’ 0.38198 0.04487 ‘Famoso’ 0.35480 0.04915 ‘N-48’ 0.33600 0.04915‘Peters’ 0.09402 0.04915 ‘Randy’ 0.51728 0.04915

TABLE 8A Least Squares Means for germination of pollen in Year 26,counted after 4° C. storage. Cultivar Mean % SE Mean % N-48 33.60 4.915Peters 9.40 4.915 Randy 51.73 4.915 B15-43 38.20 4.487 Famoso 35.484.915

TABLE 8B GLM ANOVA showing highly significant differences amongcultivars. GLM Analysis of Variance for Germination of Stored PollenSource DF SS MS F P ACC 4 0.47137 0.11784 9.76 0.000 Error 21 0.253680.01208 Total 25 0.72504 S = 0.109908 R-Sq = 65.01% R-Sq(adj) = 58.35%

Pollen Quantities: During March of Year 26 (13-year-old ‘Famoso’ trees),branches with dehiscing inflorescences were collected and evaluated.Treatments involved taking four to five shoots that were 8-12 incheslong with dehiscing inflorescences and placing them on craft paperovernight, followed by pollen collection the following morning. Pollenfrom three replicates of each treatment were collected and weighed.Treatments were normalized by counting the number of actively dehiscinginflorescences. ANOVA and ANOM were performed with MiniTab 17. Meanpollen weights for each variety are presented in FIG. 6A, and boxplotsof these viable pollen ratios by variety are shown in FIG. 6B. Raw meandata and standard deviations are presented in TABLE 9. Additional dataand analysis are provided in TABLE 10A and TABLE 10B. ‘Famoso’ providesgood quantities of viable pollen. Note that variety ‘15-43’ is alsoreferred to as variety ‘B15-43’.

TABLE 9 Pollen quantity (weight) in Year 26 Standard Variety N MeanDeviation ‘15-43’ 3 0.01683 0.00655 ‘Famoso’ 3 0.01487 0.00858 ‘N-48’ 30.04833 0.01524 ‘Peters’ 3 0.02863 0.01741 ‘Randy’ 3 0.01627 0.00958

TABLE 10A Least Squares Means for pollen quantities(grams/inflorescence). Accession Mean SE Mean N-48 0.04833 0.007042Peters 0.02863 0.007042 Randy 0.01627 0.007042 15-43 0.01683 0.007042Famoso 0.01487 0.007042

TABLE 10B GLM ANOVA for pollen quantities per inflorescence. GLM forpollen quantification Source DF SS MS F P Acc 4 0.002410 0.000602 4.050.033 Error 10 0.001488 0.000149 Total 14 0.003898 S = 0.01220 R-Sq =61.83% R-Sq(adj) = 46.56%

Inflorescence Density: The tree canopies of several male cultivars werephotographed to provide an approximate evaluation of the number ofinflorescences in the canopy. It is difficult to develop methods thataccurately quantify this variable, which is highly dependent on treesize, pruning, and tree health. FIG. 7A and FIG. 7B provide a visualcomparison of ‘Famoso’ and ‘Peters’, taken at their respective bloomperiods. ‘Peters’ had very scattered bloom in Year 26, with many budsnever breaking dormancy.

Response to Pests and/or Diseases: ‘Famoso’ has not been specificallyevaluated for resistance or susceptibility to pistachio diseases. Thisvariety is grown in a location where typical pistachio diseases areminimal, and which is managed to minimize disease development. It isexpected that susceptibility to Botryosphaeria dothidea, Botrytiscinerea, or Alternaria alternata would be similar to other commercialpistachio cultivars since Pistacia vera L. in California is generallysusceptible to these diseases. Most pistachio insect pests arecontrolled with insecticides, which have been used where ‘Famoso’ isgrown. Significant differences in unspecified insect damage were notfound among the tested cultivars, including ‘Famoso’. The flowering dateof ‘Famoso’ is similar to that of ‘Peters’, and therefore the incidenceof Botryosphaeria dothidea and Botrytis cinerea would be expected to besimilar as well.

What is claimed is:
 1. A new and distinct variety of pistachio treedesignated ‘Famoso’ as shown and described herein.